Freedom of expression deals with the thought that the people of the community should make up their own mind and express their beliefs wherever they want including in public. Regarding this issue, the perspectives by Jeremy Waldron and Catherine MacKinnon that are put forth, are both effective explanations for their contemporary take. In this essay, I will argue that MacKinnon’s’ argument is the correct position, over Waldron’s. I believe it is the more powerful argument because of her exploration of the collision between equality and law, her references to real-world examples such as sexual and racial harassment, and the acknowledgment of the oppressed voices’ being overshadowed.
In the first section of this paper, I will summarize the text “Satanic Verses” by Jeremy Waldron. In the second part of this essay, I will review MacKinnon’s reading “Only Words.” Thirdly, I will examine both readings and propose my reasoning for why MacKinnon’s position on freedom of expression is more correct. In the fourth section, I will also analyze the counter-points of the opposing author and later critique his argumentation. In the text ‘Satanic Verses’ by Jeremy Waldron, he writes, “Criticism and discussion between rival faiths is fine and unavoidable, but two dimensional toleration insists that it must be serious, earnest and respectful in its characters” (Waldron 148). This illustrates how conversations between religions is inevitable, but that it should be done in a civil manner. Waldron explains the one dimension account is when toleration involves leaving people alone with their faith and sensibilities. He writes that there is a second type of toleration that concedes this and adds a dimension of debate. Two-dimensional toleration would seem to combine the values of truth seeking. Three-dimensional toleration is when people must leave one another free to address the deep questions of religion and philosophy the best way they can, with all the resources they have at their disposal. Three-dimensional toleration is not an easy ideal to live with. He defends toleration of expressing opinions on a specific topic and shares his ideology of an open conversation to occur as a constructive debate in order to give an educational discussion. Regarding Catherine MacKinnon’s argument in ‘Only Words’, she says that there should be certain limits on freedom of expression. She writes that identifying the problem with the tension between of law of equality and freedom of expression and have not been considered side by side. MacKinnon states that someone may say their freedom of expression may be violated, but fails to acknowledge the equality of the other. She focuses on how pornography should be prohibited as it is a medium that subordinates women and shouldn’t be protected under the freedom of expression. She says “... free speech position no longer supports social dominance, as it does know; in which free speech does not most readily protect the activities of Nazis, Klansmen, and pornographers, while doing nothing for their victims” (MacKinnon 153), proving how the dominant individuals are more likely to have their expression protected. After analyzing both readings, I am in favour of Catherine MacKinnon’s stance on freedom of speech. In her text, she writes “Although it is worst …show more content…
This is argued when she states “.. the legal distinction between screaming ‘go kill that nigger’ and advocating the view that African-Americans should be eliminated from parts of the country needs to be seriously reconsidered” (MacKinnon 153). This quote is important because she is exposing how the higher power are not concerned about the lives of minorities that could be threatened. Although one expression is more explicitly discriminatory than the other, they both share the same racist ideology. Despite this, the higher power often disregards this because it is not as overt as the other. The latter expression is more difficult to dismantle as there are more layers to unfold, therefore, the government often disregards it altogether.
I think that Waldron has the weaker argument because between the two, he only makes religious comparisons and is vague about hate speech limitations. I believe his claims are not as compelling because even though he states that criticism is subjective, he does not specifically address where the line is drawn between constructive speech and outright
In the first section of this paper, I will summarize the text “Satanic Verses” by Jeremy Waldron. In the second part of this essay, I will review MacKinnon’s reading “Only Words.” Thirdly, I will examine both readings and propose my reasoning for why MacKinnon’s position on freedom of expression is more correct. In the fourth section, I will also analyze the counter-points of the opposing author and later critique his argumentation. In the text ‘Satanic Verses’ by Jeremy Waldron, he writes, “Criticism and discussion between rival faiths is fine and unavoidable, but two dimensional toleration insists that it must be serious, earnest and respectful in its characters” (Waldron 148). This illustrates how conversations between religions is inevitable, but that it should be done in a civil manner. Waldron explains the one dimension account is when toleration involves leaving people alone with their faith and sensibilities. He writes that there is a second type of toleration that concedes this and adds a dimension of debate. Two-dimensional toleration would seem to combine the values of truth seeking. Three-dimensional toleration is when people must leave one another free to address the deep questions of religion and philosophy the best way they can, with all the resources they have at their disposal. Three-dimensional toleration is not an easy ideal to live with. He defends toleration of expressing opinions on a specific topic and shares his ideology of an open conversation to occur as a constructive debate in order to give an educational discussion. Regarding Catherine MacKinnon’s argument in ‘Only Words’, she says that there should be certain limits on freedom of expression. She writes that identifying the problem with the tension between of law of equality and freedom of expression and have not been considered side by side. MacKinnon states that someone may say their freedom of expression may be violated, but fails to acknowledge the equality of the other. She focuses on how pornography should be prohibited as it is a medium that subordinates women and shouldn’t be protected under the freedom of expression. She says “... free speech position no longer supports social dominance, as it does know; in which free speech does not most readily protect the activities of Nazis, Klansmen, and pornographers, while doing nothing for their victims” (MacKinnon 153), proving how the dominant individuals are more likely to have their expression protected. After analyzing both readings, I am in favour of Catherine MacKinnon’s stance on freedom of speech. In her text, she writes “Although it is worst …show more content…
This is argued when she states “.. the legal distinction between screaming ‘go kill that nigger’ and advocating the view that African-Americans should be eliminated from parts of the country needs to be seriously reconsidered” (MacKinnon 153). This quote is important because she is exposing how the higher power are not concerned about the lives of minorities that could be threatened. Although one expression is more explicitly discriminatory than the other, they both share the same racist ideology. Despite this, the higher power often disregards this because it is not as overt as the other. The latter expression is more difficult to dismantle as there are more layers to unfold, therefore, the government often disregards it altogether.
I think that Waldron has the weaker argument because between the two, he only makes religious comparisons and is vague about hate speech limitations. I believe his claims are not as compelling because even though he states that criticism is subjective, he does not specifically address where the line is drawn between constructive speech and outright